Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04/16/2002, B 3 - AFFORDABLE HOUSING TRUST FUND Counci L 4-16-02 acEnaa aEpom CITY O F SAN LUIS O B I S P O FROM: Ken Hampian, City Administrative Officer SUBJECT: AFFORDABLE HOUSING TRUST FUND CAO RECOMMENDATION Continue the discussion with representatives of the Affordable Housing Trust Fund (AHTF) and provide staff with direction as appropriate. DISCUSSION Background During the City Council meeting of April 2, 2002, a presentation was made by representatives of the leadership team for the San Luis Obispo County Affordable Housing Trust Fund. While it was possible for the team to complete their presentation during the time allocated, insufficient time remained for City Council questions and further dialogue. The purpose of this Business item is to provide adequate time for this continued discussion. In addition, the Council may wish to provide staff with added direction following the conclusion of the discussion. CAO Comments Affordable Housing Trust Fund advocates have skillfully and correctly defined the problem: SLO County housing is too expensive (and getting even more expensive), and this creates a number of social and economic problems. The harder part is the development of effective solutions. Thus far, our City has taken a number of steps to try to improve the availability of affordable housing (Attachment 1). With regard to what is being additionally asked of the City, I have previously articulated my thoughts in the attached memorandum, which has also been provided to Trust Fund leaders (Attachment 2). 1 can say with some 'confidence that my concerns are equally shared by other city managers in the County. There is simply no easy way at the present time for cities to allocate funds of the magnitude requested to support a new, highly ambitious undertaking of this kind. If, however, substantial added funding is to be a part of the strategy, then it is my opinion that this can only be accomplished through a dedicated source of new revenues, such as a voter supported tax increase, supplemented by grant funds and private contributions. While task force members generally agree with this idea, they are suggesting that current resources—mostly from the General Fund—be used until such a long-term source can be established. There are two problems with this approach: 1. Cities currently do not have adequate General Fund revenues, let alone excess General Fund revenues. The task force may even misunderstand what composes the General Fund, since the suggestion seems to be that such revenues as sales tax, hotel/motel tax (TOT) and real i Council Agenda Report—Affordable Housing Trust Fund Page 2 estate transfer tax be considered as funding sources; and these funds are part and parcel of the General Fund. As the table below from our mid-year budget review shows, these are also among the revenues currently projected to decline severely. The following shows how our "Top Five" General Fund revenues are doing based on our initial (and what we thought were very conservative at the time) revenue projections for 2001-02 compared with our revised ones at mid-year: Top Five General Fund Revenues %of Total Fiscal Year 2001-02 General Fund Mid-Year Variance from Budget Revenues Budget Review Amount % Sales Tax 29% $ 10,038,900 $ 9,754,300 $ 2( 84,600) -3% Property Tax 15% 4,974,500 5,107,200 132,700 3% Transient Occupancy Tax(TOT) 11% 4,217,500 3,763,400 (454,100) -11% Utility Users Tax 11% 3,606,400 3,506,400 _(I 00,000) -3% Vehicle In-Lieu Fees VLF 7% 2,382,900 2,382,900 0 0% Total 74% 25,220,200 24,514,200 (706,000t) --3% As reflected in this chart, these "Top Five"revenues account for almost three-quarters of our total General Fund revenues. For three of these—sales tax, utilities users tax and TOT—we have reduced our annual projections for only the first year of our two-year plan by almost $850,000. And one these—VLF—has significant potential to be taken away by the State as it struggles with its own severe budget problems. Even greater reductions are possible in the second year of the plan. In short, we simply are not in a fiscal position to fund such a major new initiative without severely impacting "core General Fund services such as police, fire and street maintenance.. 2. However, even if cities were hypothetically able to "front" such General Fund revenues, then one would have to ask what incentive there would be for voters to subsequently tax themselves in order to establish a long-term revenue stream? And we need to recognize that under Proposition 218, creating new tax resources for this "earmarked" purpose will require two-thirds voter approval. Yes, many other housing trust funds have been established throughout the nation. I have reviewed some of these trust funds, and they have been established in a number of ways. So far, however, I have found few that were formed through substantial General Fund contributions from small to medium sized cities. On the other hand, many trust funds have been formed under the auspices of various state governments; through ballot measures, funding sources that we do not have (such as redevelopment or UDAG funds), private contributions, and public contributions from much larger cities. Last week, for example, it was announced that the City of Salinas had formed an affordable housing trust fund. In a follow-up conversation with their city manager's office, I learned that the fund will manage non-general fund sources only (HOME funds, redevelopment funds, and a private developer contribution), and all decisions about projects and uses will be made by the Salinas City Council (while there is some interest in forming a countywide approach, no 1 Council Agenda Report-Affordable Housing Trust Fund Page 3 significant steps have been taken). Salinas staff did not foresee the possibility of General Fund contributions in the future. It also must be recognized that cities are funded in a myriad of ways throughout the nation, and California cities have their own unique limitations. In general, California cities are trying to cope with higher costs created by the State (such as public safety retirement costs) and fiscal take-away threats imposed by the State—while simultaneously having a very little ability to raise added revenues to support such costs (due to fiscal constraints imposed on cities, also by the State). Which leads to another point. Over the last several years, local government in California has increasingly become the safety net for a number of social responsibilities previously handled at the federal and state levels (support for the homeless and other social service programs). While the affordable housing problem certainly has local dimensions, it also has significant federal and statewide dimensions, and yet funding from these levels of government are generally inadequate to make a"serious dent" in the problem. (It should be noted, however, that the state legislature just approved placing a $2.1 billion affordable housing bond measure on the November 2002 ballot, which, if successful, might provide a funding source for the proposed trust fund.) Therefore, when being asked to redirect General Fund dollars away from current City services, we must ask: What new problem will be created by decreasing our General Fund investment in these current service(s), and how much impact will we have on solving the "new problem"? With regret, I must say that the annual transfer of$1.3 million (or any significant amount) from the General Fund would cause more harm than good in terms of our overall responsibility to the community. Is there an alternative source of funds to the General Fund? In addition to a possible State bond, three possibilities come to mind: HOME funds allocated by the Board of the Supervisors; City CDBG funds; and the City's Affordable Housing Fund (created by Inclusionary Housing fees). With regard to HOME funds, these are formula grant funds that the Board of Supervisors controls and which have supported projects in the City of San Luis Obispo and throughout the County. Unlike CDBG funds, HOME funds are intended specifically for housing construction costs. They are, however, subject to Davis-Bacon prevailing wage requirements. With regard to CDBG funds, they can be used for many different activities, including housing projects. However, Housing and Urban Development rules do not allow agencies to "bank" those funds for some undetermined use. The funds need to be earmarked for a specific project with a specific cost and timeframe, thus making it difficult to "pool" CDBG funds with other funds for some future, undefined housing development opportunity. In addition, CDBG funds generally cannot be used for actual housing construction. At the present time, the use of CDBG funds is determined by the City Council through a process that involves applications, public hearings and a recommendation from the Human Relations Commission. Perhaps the most likely source of City funding, should we wish to contribute to an Affordable Housing Trust Fund, would be from our recently established Affordable Housing Fund. The fund has a balance of nearly $550,000. Recently, the City Council established a process for 3=3 I Council Agenda Report—Affordable Housing Trust Fund Page 4 accessing money from the Affordable Housing Fund (Attachment 3). As mentioned in my memorandum, a key Council consideration prior to committing such funds to a trust fund would relate to assurances that projects supported would benefit our community, and provide credits against our State housing allocation requirement Unfortunately, based on the current rate of contributions to our fund, it could not sustain a$1.3 million annual funding contribution. Where to From Here? Representatives of the Affordable Housing Trust Fund are obviously championing a very worthy cause and, correctly,with some urgency. There are several options available to them to maintain forward momentum with this worthwhile effort. For example, AHTF could sponsor a countywide ballot initiative to establish a new, dedicated revenue source for affordable housing. They may also seek private funds through individual or corporate grants to serve as start-up funds for the countywide effort. Unfortunately, however, as your City Administrative Officer, I cannot readily identify City an ongoing source of funding for the Trust Fund that would not have significant impacts on our service levels elsewhere. In addition, questions of fund governance and direct City benefit remain unresolved. On the other hand, if these issues can be addressed in a long-tern way, a trust fund could leverage additional funding that would improve our collective ability to provide affordable housing in the City and County. Therefore, I believe that we should continue to work with AHTF fund leaders and provide technical assistance to their efforts, if so desired. In addition, since the Board of Supervisors has already directed County staff to consider an approach to the trust fund, we should monitor this "pilot effort" carefully to determine if there is an approach that could eventually work throughout the County of San Luis Obispo. Finally, we can encourage the trust fund leaders to take an active role in tracking and supporting the affordable housing bond measure on the November ballot. Unlike the City, the trust fund leaders can be directly involved in working toward its successful passage. ATTACHMENTS 1. Existing SLO Affordable Housing Program 2. CAO Memorandum Regarding AHTF 3. SLO Affordable Housing Funding Process ATTACHMENT 1 April 2, 2002 Cly/ of San tins OBI SPO EXISTING AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROGRAMS 1. Inclusionary Housing Program. In March 1999, San Luis Obispo adopted the first inclusionary housing requirement in the County. The requirement applies to both residential and commercial development. In new residential subdivisions, 15% of the dwellings built must be sold at prices affordable to low- and moderate-income households. Most new commercial projects must include affordable housing, build it offsite, or pay into a citywide affordable housing fund. Affordable units must remain so for either 30 years or, for for-sale properties, the owner may chose to participate in the "shared equity program." In this program, the owner may sell the affordable property within six years of initial sale by sharing the property's built up equity value with the City upon resale of the affordable unit. Funds generated are then used to develop additional affordable housing. So far, the program has produced about 75 affordable units and generated over one-half million dollars in in-lieu housing fees. 2. The Affordable Housing Fund. The Affordable Housing Fund, established in March 1999, implements the City's Inclusionary Housing Requirement. It provides a fund for the collection of in-lieu fees and for the disbursement of those funds for affordable housing projects citywide. Ordinance 1438 states "the fund is established and administered by the City, containing in-lieu fees and other funds held and used exclusively to increase and improve the supply of affordable housing." The ordinance also says the fund shall be administered by the Finance Director and is allocated "at the discretion of the City Council." Potential uses, award procedures and criteria were set by the City Council in December 2001 (Resolution 9263). Last year, Council earmarked $215,000 of the Fund to Judson Terrace Lodge to build a 32- unit apartment project for frail, low-income elderly persons. The Fund has a balance of$544,883. 3. Affordable Housing Incentives (Ch. 17.90 of SLOMC). Adopted in 1985, the incentives are part of the City's Municipal Code and describe benefits available to affordable housing developers. Possible incentives include residential density bonuses, fee reductions or waivers, city installation of off-site improvements, direct city financial assistance, subdivision, zoning or other exceptions to city standards, and other incentives that may be negotiated between the City and developer. For example, the incentives allow a residential density bonus by right of at least 25 percent for developers building five or more dwelling units with at least 20 percent of the units sold or rented at prices affordable to seniors or to very-low, low or moderate income persons. J—S 4. Community Development Block Grants. Since 1994, the City has provided over $3.17 Million in CDBG funds for the purchase and improvement of affordable housing. 5. Waiver of Development Review and Meter Installation Fees for Affordable Housing Projects. In 1995, Council adopted Resolution No. 8415 which exempts very-low and low income affordable housing developments from all planning, building or engineering development review fees and from water meter and sewer installation fees. 6. Waiver of Citywide Development Impact Fees For Affordable Housing Units. In 2000, Council adopted Resolution No. 9131 waiving city-wide development impact fees (traffic, water, wastewater) on new dwellings that either: 1) exceed the minimum number of affordable units required by the City's Inclusionary Housing Requirements; or 2) are built, owned and managed by the San Luis Obispo City Housing Authority, government agencies or not-for-profit housing agencies. The waiver reduces cost for a typical single-family house by about$11,000. 7. Relaxed Parking Standards for Affordable Housing. Under City Zoning Regulations (17.16.060.K), housing occupied exclusively by very low or low-income households, as defined by the State, requires one car and one bicycle space per dwelling unit. S. Utilities Assistance Program For Low-Income Residents. The City helps low- income residents with their utility costs through a Low Income Assistance Program, consisting of: 1) Rate Assistance. There is a 15% reduction of the standard rate for water and sewer for qualified, low income customers. 2) Payment Assistance. Economic Opportunity Commission (EOC) administers the Payment Assistance Program. Customers are eligible once, every two years, to have one billing period paid depending on the availability of funds; and 3) Water Efficiency Assistance. Utilities Conservation staff provides customers receiving either Rate Assistance or Payment Assistance with free information and water audit services to help control the cost of their water bills. In addition, City staff regularly serves as a resource to promote affordable housing by working with community groups, Cuesta College and Cal Poly. For example, staff from several City departments have been meeting with a private student housing developer to discuss process, financing opportunities and design for a potential 250-unit private student housing complex in San Luis Obispo. Community Development Department management staff serves on the Cal Poly Campus Planning Committee and on the Cuesta College Student Housing Committee. Through this role, City staff continues to support institutional efforts to meet the housing needs of students, faculty and staff. Jh/Uhousing/affordablehousingincendves3-02b ATTACHMENT 2 ����������������►►������� ������� council m c m o Ra n b u m March 1, 2002 TO: City Council FROM: Ken Hampian SUBJECT: Affordable Housing Trust Fund Overview Representatives of the Affordable Housing Trust Fund are beginning a series of presentations to all cities in the County, and to County government. The presentation to the Board of Supervisors was made last week, and a presentation to the SLO City Council is planned for April 2, 2002. Exploring the potential for participating in the Trust Fund is included in the work program for the Council's Major City Goal related to affordable housing. The mission of the Affordable Housing Trust Fund is one that we can all support: "...to increase the number of units of affordable housing for low and moderate income County residents. " The difficulty begins in determining how to go about achieving the mission. The purpose of this memorandum is to sensitize Council members to some significant challenges associated with the proposal, as presently crafted, prior to the Council presentation on April 2"d What is Being Asked of the Cities and County As presently crafted, the success of the fund depends upon "...a $S million annual fund made possible through the dedication of public resources from the County along with its seven cities". Attached is an article Trust Fund advocates recently published in a national newsletter which outlines the proposed contributions. As noted in the article, "Each jurisdiction is being asked to provide funds to the Trust Fund from their existing revenues until a permanent source of funds is identified and implemented. " The proposed level of funding level from the City of San Luis Obispo is $1.3 million annually. In the original Trust Fund proposal, potential sources of "existing revenues" were outlined, including several General Fund sources (e.g. sales, TOT, and utility taxes) and a number of fees, including inclusionary housing fees. Other ideas include proceeds from the sale of public lands, a ballot measure to establish a long term funding source, and private contributions. The Conceptual Difficulties After becoming aware of the details of the proposal, the city managers and County CAO invited Trust Fund leader, Anita Robinson, to meet with us at a breakfast meeting to share our practical "on the ground" concerns. While we had a very open and useful discussion, these concerns have 3/ not been addressed in subsequent Trust Fund work. Therefore, on Tuesday, February 26, 2002, at the invitation of city managers, another meeting was held to discuss these issues. Those attending the meeting included Trust Fund leaders Anita Robinson, George Moylan, and Ann Travers. Representatives of the city managers included Atascadero city managers Wade McKinney, Arroyo Grande City Manager Steve Adams, and myself. David Edge, County CAO, and Jim Grant, County ACAO also attended the meeting. In summary,we started by expressing our support—and our council/board support—for the goal of increasing the supply of affordable housing. We emphasized,however, that achieving the goal would depend upon recognizing and addressing several practical issues—both financial and govemance-related—that are currently a part of the concept. These issues include: 1. Even in"good times", cities and the County do not have General Fund monies available to fund such a new, ambitious program—a program designed to address a problem that transcends municipal government (this is true in SLO, and it is especially true in all other County cities,where resources are scarcer yet). In addition,most cities strongly resist earmarking General Fund monies—the fund that exists to support basic City services and unforeseen needs or emergencies; 2. We are most certainly not in"good times". As we know from our Mid-Year Budget Report earlier this week, our sales tax and TOT combined are expected to be down$1.8 million by June 2003. In addition, the conventional wisdom is that the greater financial threat is coming with the 2003-04 budget,when the State may have an even larger deficit; 3. Therefore, a dedicated source of new revenue is the best way to support the Trust Fund. However,this will require a ballot measure campaign, which will admittedly require a lot of hard work, while offering uncertain results; 4. In terms of non-General Fund sources, some cities (like SLO)have"inclusionary housing funds". The question with respect to such funds shall be: What assurances would a city have that transferring funds to a new, 15 person decision-making body(with only one city representative)will result in more benefits than could be achieved"going it alone"? 5. How would all of this relate to the challenge of achieving State housing goals? For example, would cities get"credit" for helping to fund projects outside their city limit? There were many other points made during our breakfast meeting, including discussion of potential benefits, such as leveraging other funds, technical assistance, and advocacy. However, achieving the goal is much easier said than done, and will be made more difficult if the current conceptual problems are not recognized and addressed in the further development of the program. We hope that our breakfast meeting helped better frame these challenges, and that they will be recognized and discussed as Trust Fund leaders appear before the various cities. We shall also have the opportunity to observe and learn from the County's follow-up to this issue. Attachment: Newsletter Article Cc: Staff distribution GEampian/memos/affordable housing fund 3_g' ATTACHMENT 3 RESOLUTION NO. 9263 (2001 Series) A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO ESTABLISHING AWARD CRITERIA AND A REVIEW PROCESS FOR ALLOCATING AFFORDABLE HOUSING FUNDS. WHEREAS,the City Council adopted Ordinance 1348 (1999 Series)establishing an Affordable Housing Fund for the collection and distribution of in-lieu housing fees to promote affordable housing in San Luis Obispo; and WHEREAS, as a result of the in-lieu fee payments to the City under the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance, the City has a balance of approximately $400,000 in the Affordable Housing Fund, and this fund is available to support affordable housing in San Luis Obispo at the sole discretion of the City Council; and WHEREAS,the City received requests by Judson Terrace Lodge and Sojourn Services,Inc. for the use of$215,000 and$25,000,respectively, of Affordable Housing Funds; and to evaluate these and future funding requests in a fair and timely manner, Council wishes to establish award criteria and a review process for the Affordable Housing Fund; and WHEREAS, the City Council held a meeting on December 4,2001 to consider possible award criteria that balance the need to provide a fair,open and timely funding award process with the desire to maintain funding flexibility to address local housing needs and opportunities; NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo that based on its deliberations,public comments, the staff report,and on State law, the following: SECTION 1. Affordable Housing Fund Award Criteria. The City Council establishes the following criteria for evaluating requests for use of the Affordable Housing Fund: 1. Eligibility. Use of the Affordable Housing Fund(AHF)for the requested purpose will increase or improve the City's affordable housing inventory and promote General Plan policies regarding housing. 2. Need. There exists a substantial or overarching need for the type of housing to be assisted. 3. Suitability. The project to be assisted is appropriate for its location,both in terms of land use and design. 4. Timing. The project would be better serve the City's needs if it were built immediately as opposed to later. R 9263 Resolution No. 9263 ,_,i01 Series) Page 2 5.Financial Effectiveness. But for the requested assistance,the project would not be economically feasible; or AHF funding"leverages"significant additional funding from other sources. 6. Readiness. The project has all necessary City approvals and is ready to proceed. SECTION 2. Use of Award Criteria. The Council will apply the above criteria when evaluating funding requests. Requests that most closely meet the criteria will be given the most favorable consideration in allocating Affordable Housing Funds. Under no circumstances is Council obligated to award Affordable Housing Funds. The decision whether to allocate funds and how much is at the sole discretion of the City Council whose decision is final. SECTION 3. Review Process. The Community Development Director shall be responsible for processing requests for use of Affordable Housing Funds. Such requests shall usually be considered concurrent with review of the City's Community Development Block Grant Program. The Director is authorized to bring urgent funding requests to the Council at any time, irrespective of the above review cycle. SECTION 4. Funding Agreements. Recipients of Affordable Housing Funds shall be required to execute an agreement with the City describing the purpose and terms of funding. The project or program to be funded shall meet the City's Affordable Housing Standards,including the requirement for an affordability term of at least thirty(30)years, and City equity participation in the project where feasible and appropriate. The City Administrative Officer is authorized to execute such agreements for the City. Upon motion of Council Member Schwartz, seconded by Vice Mayor Marx,and on the following roll call vote: AYES: Council Members Ewan, Mulholland,Schwartz,Vice Mayor Marx, and Mayor Settle NOES: None ABSENT: None The foregoing resolution was adopted this 4'day of December 2001 80, Mayor Allen Settle ATM T: Lee Price, City Clerk 3-10 Resolution No. 9263 ,—.,J1 Series) _ Page 3 APPROVED AS TO FORM: J re Jor nse , ity htomey SING AGENDA DATE '//!0-OZ- ITEM #_ 3 Thoughts on the presentation made by the Affordable Dousing Trust Fund members before the SLO City Council,Tuesday, April 2, 2002 Ken Schwartz Proposal appears totally directed to public sector. This is unacceptable. Proposal needs to be balanced with contributions from the private sector. Some ideas for private sector contributions: 1. Lending institutions: (a) All lending institutions within the County shall unite and create an affordable housing loan fund to which each lending institution shall be obligated to contribute an annual sum equal to `k" percent of their assets designated for real estate loans. C�ONCIL OVCDD DIR ) Loans for affordable housing shall be made at the market rate C ❑ FIN DIR less 1 i/z%. Other loan terms shall not be more stringent than FRAC [I FIRE CHIEF those of a normal residential loan. RNEY ❑ PW DIR CLERK/ORIG M POUCE CHF c) Lending institutions shall remove all obstacles to the granting of ❑ T EADS ❑ REC DIR loans for housing units that are coupled with commercial or UTIL DIR institution uses;e.g. "Mixed uses" such as housing over ground m ❑ HR DIR floor retail, office, or institution uses. 2. Real estate and title and trust transactions: (a) These transactions shall occur at a discounted rate(?)for all affordable housing properties and title documentations. 3. Construction services: (a) Design and contractor services shall be discounted`Y'%when housing units produced from the same plans exceed four units. (b) Building supplies shall be discounted by`Y'%over the normal discount afforded to contractors. Additional thoughts: A. A committee should be formed to place a bond measure on the ballot for financing the purchase of land and the building of affordable housing. The bond should probably be in the$4—$6 million range. B. A Housing Authority should be formed in the North County and another in the South County to perform services in those areas similar to the services performed by the San Luis Obispo City Housing Authority. C. Likewise,homeless shelters should be created in the North County and South County comparable to those in the City of San Luis Obispo. 11Otvnoo un ois a3AI203a April 2, 2002 C, '_V`/ Of Ids ,7 M san US OBI SPO EXISTING AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROGRAMS 1. Inclusionary Housing Program. In March 1999, San Luis Obispo adopted the first inclusionary housing requirement in the County. The requirement applies to both residential and commercial development. In new residential subdivisions, 15% of the dwellings built must be sold at prices affordable to low- and moderate-income households. Most new commercial projects must include affordable housing, build it offsite, or pay into a citywide affordable housing fund. Affordable units must remain so for either 30 years or, for for-sale properties, the owner may chose to participate in the "shared equity program." In this program, the owner may sell the affordable property within six years of initial sale by sharing the property's built up equity value with the City upon resale of the affordable unit. Funds generated are then used to develop additional affordable housing. So far, the program has produced about 75 affordable units and generated over one-half million dollars in in-lieu housing fees. 2. The Affordable Housing Fund. The Affordable Housing Fund, established in March 1999, implements the City's Inclusionary Housing Requirement. It provides a fund for the collection of in-lieu fees and for the disbursement of those funds for affordable housing projects citywide. Ordinance 1438 states "the fund is established and administered by the City, containing in-lieu fees and other funds held and used exclusively to increase and improve the supply of affordable housing." The ordinance also says the fund shall be administered by the Finance Director and is allocated "at the discretion of the City Council." Potential uses, award procedures and criteria were set by the City Council in December 2001 (Resolution 9263). Last year,Council earmarked$215,000 of the Fund to Judson Terrace Lodge to build a 32- unit apartment project for frail, low-income elderly persons. The Fund has a balance of$544,883. 3. Affordable Housing Incentives (Ch. 17.90 of SLOW). Adopted in 1985, the incentives are part of the City's Municipal Code and describe benefits available to affordable housing developers. Possible incentives include residential density bonuses, fee reductions or waivers, city installation of off-site improvements, direct city financial assistance, subdivision, zoning or other exceptions to city standards, and other incentives that may be negotiated between the City and developer. For example, the incentives allow a residential density bonus by right of at least 25 percent for developers building five or more dwelling units with at least 20 percent of the units sold or rented at prices affordable to seniors or to very-low, low or moderate income persons. 4. Community Development Block Grants. Since 1994, the City has provided over $3.17 Million in CDBG funds for the purchase and improvement of affordable housing. 5. Waiver of Development Review and Meter Installation Fees for Affordable Housing Projects. In 1995, Council adopted Resolution No. 8415 which exempts very-low and low income affordable housing developments from all planning, building or engineering development review fees and from water meter and sewer installation fees. 6. Waiver of Citywide Development Impact Fees For Affordable Housing Units. In 2000, Council adopted Resolution No. 9131 waiving city-wide development impact fees (traffic, water, wastewater) on new dwellings that either: 1) exceed the minimum number of affordable units required by the City's Inclusionary Housing Requirements; or 2) are built, owned and managed by the San Luis Obispo City Housing Authority, government agencies or not-for-profit housing agencies. The waiver reduces cost for a typical single-family house by about$11,000. 7. Relaxed Parking Standards for Affordable Housing. Under City Zoning Regulations (17.16.060.K), housing occupied exclusively by very low or low-income households, as defined by the State, requires one car and one bicycle space per dwelling unit. 8. Utilities Assistance Program For Low-Income Residents. The City helps low- income residents with their utility costs through a Low Income Assistance Program, consisting of. 1) Rate Assistance. There is a 15% reduction of the standard rate for water and sewer for qualified, low income customers. 2) Payment Assistance. Economic Opportunity Commission (EOC) administers the Payment Assistance Program. Customers are eligible once, every two years, to have one billing period paid depending on the availability of funds; and 3) Water Efficiency Assistance. Utilities Conservation staff provides customers receiving either Rate Assistance or Payment Assistance with free information and water audit services to help control the cost of their water bills. In addition, City staff regularly serves as a resource to promote affordable housing by working with community groups, Cuesta College and Cal Poly. For example, staff from several City departments have been meeting with a private student housing developer to discuss process, financing opportunities and design for a potential 250-unit private student housing complex in San Luis Obispo. Community Development Department management staff serves on the Cal Poly Campus Planning Committee and on the Cuesta College Student Housing Committee. Through this role, City staff continues to support institutional efforts to meet the housing needs of students, faculty and staff. Jh/Uhousing/affordablehousingincentives3-02b